Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DECISION
VELASCO, JR., J : p
(c.1) In the case of cash sale, the selling price shall be the
consideration per deed of sale.
(c.2.2) In the case of shares of stock not listed and traded in the local
stock exchanges, the book value of the shares of stock as shown in
the financial statements duly certified by an independent certified
public accountant nearest to the date of sale shall be the fair market
value.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
In view of the foregoing, the Commissioner ruled that the difference
between the book value and the selling price in the sales transaction is
taxable donation subject to a 30% donor's tax under Section 99 (B) of the
NIRC. 7 Respondent Commissioner likewise held that BIR Ruling [DA-(DT-065)
715-09], on which petitioner anchored its claim, has already been revoked
by Revenue Memorandum Circular (RMC) No. 25-2011. 8
Aggrieved, petitioner requested respondent Secretary of Finance
(Secretary) to review BIR Ruling No. 015-12, but to no avail. For on
November 26, 2012, respondent Secretary affirmed the Commissioner's
assailed ruling in its entirety. 9
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Not contented with the adverse results, petitioner elevated the case to
the CA via a petition for review under Rule 43, assigning the following errors:
10
A.
1.
The Sale of Shares were sold at their fair market value and
for fair and full consideration in money or money's worth.
2.
On May 23, 2013, the CA issued the assailed Resolution dismissing the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
CA Petition, thusly: HaAISC
Procedural Arguments
a. Petitioner's contentions
Insisting on the propriety of the interposed CA petition, Philamlife,
while conceding that respondent Commissioner issued BIR Ruling No. 015-12
in accordance with her authority to interpret tax laws, argued nonetheless
that such ruling is subject to review by the Secretary of Finance under Sec. 4
of the NIRC, to wit:
SECTION 4. Power of the Commissioner to Interpret Tax Laws and to
Decide Tax Cases. — The power to interpret the provisions of this
Code and other tax laws shall be under the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of the Commissioner, subject to review by the
Secretary of Finance.
The power to decide disputed assessments, refunds of internal
revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties imposed in relation
thereto, or other matters arising under this Code or other laws or
portions thereof administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue is
vested in the Commissioner, subject to the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals.
Even though the provision suggests that it only covers rulings of the
Commissioner, We hold that it is, nonetheless, sufficient enough to include
appeals from the Secretary's review under Sec. 4 of the NIRC.
It is axiomatic that laws should be given a reasonable interpretation
which does not defeat the very purpose for which they were passed. 17
Courts should not follow the letter of a statute when to do so would depart
from the true intent of the legislature or would otherwise yield conclusions
inconsistent with the purpose of the act. 18 This Court has, in many cases
involving the construction of statutes, cautioned against narrowly
interpreting a statute as to defeat the purpose of the legislator, and rejected
the literal interpretation of statutes if to do so would lead to unjust or absurd
results. 19
Indeed, to leave undetermined the mode of appeal from the Secretary
of Finance would be an injustice to taxpayers prejudiced by his adverse
rulings. To remedy this situation, We imply from the purpose of RA 1125 and
its amendatory laws that the CTA is the proper forum with which to institute
the appeal. This is not, and should not, in any way, be taken as a derogation
of the power of the Office of President but merely as recognition that
matters calling for technical knowledge should be handled by the agency or
quasi-judicial body with specialization over the controversy. As the
specialized quasi-judicial agency mandated to adjudicate tax, customs, and
assessment cases, there can be no other court of appellate jurisdiction that
can decide the issues raised in the CA petition, which involves the tax
treatment of the shares of stocks sold.
Petitioner, though, next invites attention to the ruling in Ursal v. Court
of Tax Appeals 20 to argue against granting the CTA jurisdiction by
implication, viz.:
Republic Act No. 1125 creating the Court of Tax Appeals did not
grant it blanket authority to decide any and all tax disputes. Defining
such special court's jurisdiction, the Act necessarily limited its authority
to those matters enumerated therein. In line with this idea we recently
approved said court's order rejecting an appeal to it by Lopez & Sons
from the decision of the Collector of Customs, because in our opinion
its jurisdiction extended only to a review of the decisions of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Commissioner of Customs, as provided by the statute — and not to
decisions of the Collector of Customs. (Lopez & Sons vs. The Court of
Tax Appeals, 100 Phil., 850, 53 Off. Gaz., [10] 3065).
xxx xxx xxx
. . . Republic Act No. 1125 is a complete law by itself and
expressly enumerates the matters which the Court of Tax Appeals may
consider; such enumeration excludes all others by implication.
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Petitioner's contention is untenable. Lest the ruling in Ursal be taken
out of context, but worse as a precedent, it must be noted that the primary
reason for the dismissal of the said case was that the petitioner therein
lacked the personality to file the suit with the CTA because he was not
adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of Internal
Revenue, as was required under Sec. 11 of RA 1125. 21 As held: TIDaCE
Petitioner avers that there is now a trend wherein both the CTA and the
CA disclaim jurisdiction over tax cases: on the one hand, mere prayer for the
declaration of a tax measure's unconstitutionality or invalidity before the
CTA can result in a petition's outright dismissal, and on the other hand, the
CA will likewise dismiss the same petition should it find that the primary
issue is not the tax measure's validity but the assessment or taxability of the
transaction or subject involved. To illustrate this point, petitioner cites the
assailed Resolution, thusly:
Admittedly, in British American Tobacco vs. Camac ho, the
Supreme Court has ruled that the determination of whether a specific
rule or set of rules issued by an administrative agency contravenes the
law or the constitution is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts,
not the CTA.
xxx xxx xxx
Footnotes
* Acting member per Special Order No. 1878 dated November 21, 2014.
4. Id. at 94-99.
5. "The legislative intendment of the deemed gift provision under Section 100 of
the Tax Code is to discourage the parties to a sale from manipulating their
selling price in order to save on income taxes. This is because under the Tax
Code, the measurement of gain from a disposition of property merely
considers the amount realized from the sale, which is the selling price minus
the basis of the property sold. Hence, if the parties would declare a lower
selling price per document of sale than the actual amount of money which
changed hands, there is foregone revenue and the government is placed at a
very disadvantageous position."
6. Rollo , p. 190.
7. NIRC, Sec. 99 (B): Tax Payable by Donor if Donee is a Stranger. — When the
donee or beneficiary is stranger, the tax payable by the donor shall be thirty
percent (30%) of the net gifts. For the purpose of this tax, a "stranger", is a
person who is not a:
8. "It is noteworthy to state that the above provision (Section 100 of the Tax Code)
does not mention of any exempt transaction. The above provision is clear
and free from any doubt and/or ambiguity. Hence, there is no room for
interpretation. There is only room for application."
12. Providing for the Implementing Rules of the First Paragraph of Section 4 of the
National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, Repealing for this Purpose
Department Order No. 005-99 and Revenue Administrative Order No. 1-99.
Section 1. Scope of this Order. — This Department Order shall apply to all
rulings of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) that implement the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
provisions of the NIRC and other tax laws.
14. G.R. No. 163583, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 511.
15. Section 1. Scope. — This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final
orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders
or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of
its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service
Commission, Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of the President, Land Registration Authority, Social
Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks
and Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration, Energy
Regulatory Board, National Telecommunications Commission, Department of
Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657, Government Service
Insurance System, Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural
Invention Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy
Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission, and voluntary arbitrators authorized by law.
16. G.R. No. 155996, June 27, 2012, 675 SCRA 20.
17. Municipality of Nueva Era, Ilocos Norte v. Municipality of Marcos, Ilocos Norte,
G.R. No. 169435, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 71.
18. Torres v. Limjap, 56 Phil. 141 (1931); citing Vol. II Sutherland, Statutory
Construction, pp. 693-695.
19. The Secretary of Justice v. Koruga, G.R. No. 166199, April 24, 2009, 582 SCRA
513.
20. 101 Phil. 209 (1957).
21. SEC. 11. Who may appeal; effect of appeal. — Any person, association or
corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Collector of
Internal Revenue, the Collector of Customs or any provincial or city Board of
Assessment Appeals may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
thirty days after the receipt of such decision or ruling.